WA4/5 definitely have elements of it but is way more constrained (maybe if it were about positioning on a large field like most SRPGs rather than just an 8 hexagon grid), and VP2 has full movement rather than being a grid. Not that some SRPGs depend on a grid (Phantom Brave, and for a hazier example Growlanser), but VP2's system is notably distinct from most anything else so there really isn't a good comparison. That, and while not required by SRPGs or exclusive to them the fact all non-battle stuff is handled through menus in Devil Suvivor is something you'd normally see out of strategy RPGs.

Dave IS ultimately right though, it's simply not black and white categorizing games. Hell, forget Devil Survivor, it wouldn't even be worth arguing against were it not for the traditional battles when units clash: it's GROWLANSER that can very easily be argued as a traditional RPG and not all that dissimilar from games like Baldur's Gate, Dragon Age, or KotOR when it comes to gameplay, but in the end positioning IS relevant, the development team has an SRPG heritage forwards and backwards (being responsible for Langrisser AND Devil Survivor), Growlanser II went much closer to a proper SRPG, and Atlus HAS called it an SRPG, so there we go.

On that subject, X-Com should be called an SRPG and covered by RPGFan ;)

I seriously think the main reason it isn't is just because the original game predated the popularity of that term. Heck, if you read interviews with the developers of the new game, they clearly cite things like Final Fantasy Tactics and Valkyria Chronicles as influences.

On that subject, X-Com should be called an SRPG and covered by RPGFan ;)

The example I was afraid to say...

Well, I think part of it could be that all your guys are generics. Which probably doesn't hold too much water with games like the old dungeon crawlers like Wizardry and their successors like Etrian Odyssey, but I'm guessing, say, the differences between it and Fire Emblem establish the line. Maybe. Someone else would be better off arguing this.

My litmus test for SRPGs is the heal test. The principle behind it is in how your party and its members are perceived as. In your CRPGs your party is strictly considered to be one unit whereas in your SRPGs your team consists more of individual units under your control that are designed to function like a team rather than a single team like unit. Therefore, with the heal test, if I were to cast a heal spell in a CRPG my choices in targets would consist of 'individual' or 'all' with the only consideration being whether or not I want the heal's full power on one unit or the heal's lesser power on all of them, but with an SRPG your choice in heal targets is almost always a matter of who's in range and rarely if ever is there an 'all' choice since you also have other options when dealing with an injured unit rather than in a CRPG which consists of either getting the heal off or hoping to god the enemy doesn't attack that person this turn.

It's the reason why I consider games like Lufia 3 to be a CRPG despite the fact that positioning is everything in that game.